[PAGE 1]
City of Eureka, CA
Citizen's Oversight on Police Practices Regular Meeting
Tuesday, October 24, 2023
3:30 PM
Council Chambers
AGENDA
THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:
Attend the meeting in person. City Hall will be open for this meeting.
Join Zoom Meeting:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88087853303?pwd=T3U5WldZTWdJaU1scHFyd2VkZXNSQT09
Meeting ID: 880 8785 3303
Passcode: 471429
Participate in writing. Submit written comment by mail to 531 K Street, Eureka, CA 95501; email
to sfazio@eurekaca.gov; or deliver comments to City Hall lobby prior to the meeting, at noon to
ensure the Commission receives your comment before the meeting. All written comments will be
part of the public record for consideration but may not be read aloud during the meeting.
View only on the City’s website (no participation). Watch live on the City of Eureka’s website at
www.eurekaca.gov
A. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The land that Eureka rests on is known in the Wiyot language as Jaroujiji. Past actions by local,
State and Federal governments removed the Wiyot and other indigenous peoples from the land
and threatened to destroy their cultural practices. The City of Eureka acknowledge the Wiyot
community, their elders both past and present, as well as future generations. This
acknowledgement demonstrates the City’s commitment to dismantle the ongoing legacies of
settler colonialism.
B. CALL TO ORDER
C. ROLL CALL
1

[PAGE 2]
D. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
E.1. Minutes
Recommendation: Approve Minutes
Minutes_20232507.docx
F. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is a time for the public to comment on items not listed on the agenda. Policy is to limit each
speaker to 3 minutes.
G. OLD BUSINESS
H. NEW BUISNESS
H.1. OIR Group Review of EPD Q3 2023
Recommendation:Receive Report
FINAL - OIR Group Review of EPD Q3 2023.pdf
H.2. Complaints and Investigation Review Log
Recommendation:Receive Report
OIR Group - Eureka Police Department Complaint Log October 2023.pdf
I. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS
J. POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT
J.1. Status of staffing and recruitment
Recommendation:Receive Presentation
J.2. Eureka Police Department Software Update
Recommendation:Receive Presentation
K. STAFF REPORTS/PRESENTATIONS
K.1. Police Military Gear Update
2

[PAGE 3]
Recommendation:Receive Presentation
L. ADJOURNMENT
M. NOTICES
The meeting room is ADA accessible. Accommodations and access to City meetings for
people with special needs must be request of the City Clerk at 441-4175 72 hours in advance of
the meeting. This agenda and other materials are available in alternative formats upon request
3

[PAGE 4]
Agenda Item No:E.1
Community Oversite on Police Practices Board Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: October 24, 2023
Submitted by: Shannon Fazio
Submitting Department: City Manager
Item Type: Minutes
Agenda Section:
Subject:
Minutes
Suggested Action:
Recommendation: Approve Minutes
Attachments:
Minutes_20232507.docx
4

[PAGE 5]
MINUTES OF
COMMUNITY OVERSIGHT of POLICING PRACTICES
July 25, 2023
The COPP of the City of Eureka met in REGULAR Session on the above date, 3:30pm
P.M. Closed Session, 6:00 P.M. Open Session, at the Eureka City Hall, Council
Chambers, 531 “K” Street, Eureka.
A) LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
B) CALL TO ORDER at 3:32pm
C) ROLL CALL
PRESIDING: Melinda Ciarabellini
PRESENT: Lawrence Giventer
Mark Pardoe
Raul Torres
Dino Novello
Kimberley Wiley
ABSENT: James Ladika
STAFF: Shannon Fazio, Miles Slattery, Will Folger, Chief Jarvis
D) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
E) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Board Member Giventer motioned, 2nd by Board member Novello, to approve
the minutes as presented with the change to reflect Board Member Torres was
absent. Motion Carries.
AYES: Melinda Ciarabellini, Lawrence Giventer, Mark Pardoe, Raul Torres,
Dino Novello, Kimberley Wiley
NOES: None
ABSENT: James Ladika
5

[PAGE 6]
F) The following individuals addressed the Board:
Janelle Egger
Public Comment Closed at 3:40pm
G) OLD BUSINESS: None
H) NEW BUISNESS
H.1 Complaints & Investigation Review Log - OIR Group- Michael Gennaco and Julie
Ruhlin provided a report.
OIR Group - Eureka Police Department Complaint and Investigations
Log 7-18-23.pdf – Julie Ruhlin provided a report.
No one from the Public addressed the board on this matter.
Board member Giventer motioned, Board Member Torres 2nd approval of
Complaint and Investigations log as presented. Motion Carries
AYES: Melinda Ciarabellini, Lawrence Giventer, Mark Pardoe, Raul Torres, Dino
Novello, Kimberley Wiley
NOES: None
ABSENT: James Ladika
FINAL - OIR Group Review - IA Case 22-03 - Julie Ruhlin provided a
report.
No one from the Public addressed the Council on this matter.
Board Member Wiley motioned, Board Member Torres 2nd approval of Review for
Case 22-03 as prepared. Motion Carries.
AYES: Melinda Ciarabellini, Lawrence Giventer, Mark Pardoe, Raul Torres, Dino
Novello, Kimberley Wiley
NOES: None
ABSENT: James Ladika
FINAL - OIR Group Review of EPD Texting Case - Michael Gennaco and
Julie Ruhlin provided a report.
No one from the public addressed the Board on this matter.
Board Member Pardoe motioned, Board Member Novello 2nd approval of EPD
Texting Case Review as prepared. Motion Carries.
6

[PAGE 7]
AYES: Melinda Ciarabellini, Lawrence Giventer, Mark Pardoe, Raul Torres, Dino
Novello, Kimberley Wiley
NOES: None
ABSENT: James Ladika
I) BOARD MEMBER REPORTS
Board Member Wiley appreciated Chief Todd Jarvis and Asst Chief Brian Stephens
efforts for wellness programs in the workplace. EPD hosted de-escalation training at
workplace site.
Board Member Giventer would like discussion on social media and policy around EPD.
J) POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT
Chief Jarvis provided a report on staffing levels. As well as recruitment. EPD currently
does not have a Traffic Unit.
No one from the public addressed the Board on this matter.
K) STAFF REPORTS/PRESENTATIONS
Department Head Will Folger provided a report on the Humboldt County Equity
Consortium
L) ADJOURNMENT: 5:11pm
Next Meeting: October 24th at 3:30pm
APPROVED:
__________________________________
Melinda Ciarabellini
Board Chair
Attest:
__________________________________
Shannon Fazio
Deputy City Clerk
7

[PAGE 8]
Agenda Item No:H.1
Community Oversite on Police Practices Board Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: October 24, 2023
Submitted by: Shannon Fazio
Submitting Department: City Manager
Item Type: Report
Agenda Section:
Subject:
OIR Group Review of EPD Q3 2023
Suggested Action:
Receive Report
Attachments:
FINAL - OIR Group Review of EPD Q3 2023.pdf
8

[PAGE 9]
7142 Trask Avenue
Playa del Rey, CA 90293
323-821-0586
OIRGroup.com
TO: City of Eureka Community Oversight Police Practices Board
FROM: OIR Group
DATE: October 18, 2023
RE: Review of Administrative Investigations: Third Quarter
Introduction
In its role as the City of Eureka’s Independent Police Auditor, OIR Group reviews
internal investigations conducted by the Eureka Police Department (EPD) to ensure
they are complete, objective, thorough, and fair and that findings and actions taken in
response to the investigations are appropriate. We report these findings on a quarterly
basis to the community at the Community Oversight Police Practices (COPP) Board
meeting.
In the first months of our engagement, OIR Group reviewed cases that had been closed
with the Chief’s final findings and, when applicable, after discipline had been issued to
the subject employee(s).1 For each of these cases, OIR Group issued a memo outlining
the case, EPD’s investigation, and our assessment and recommendations. Because
1 We did so, in part, because EPD had completed, or were near completion of, these cases prior to
the start of our engagement.
9

[PAGE 10]
each case was closed and complete at the time of our review, our comments could not
impact that specific case’s outcome. Our recommendations instead were intended to
inform the process generally going forward.
But by August of 2023, we had completed reviews of all EPD’s closed cases. Rather
than wait to review cases after they were closed, EPD requested that OIR Group review
open cases and provide feedback in real time. EPD sent cases for our review before
the case was closed; we worked collaboratively to ensure that investigations were
complete, objective, thorough and fair before they were sent to command staff for
disposition and closure. This interaction allowed us to provide recommendations that
might impact the specific case, as well as offer larger process or policy
recommendations.
As a result of this “mid-quarter” review process shift, our report to the COPP Board this
quarter includes both types of reviews: individual memos that evaluate completed cases
and reporting of our real-time engagement with cases.
Closed Cases: Case Summaries & Findings
Prior to shifting to real-time case review, OIR Group received and reviewed several
cases after they were closed by EPD. For each of these, OIG Group completed an
individual review memo; these are attached as Appendix A and contain more detailed
information. Here, we provide a very summary of each case and our recommendations.
Case #22-10
This case involved a complaint of harassment and retaliation. The complainant alleged
that EPD officers who responded to a call of a suspicious person had harassed and
threatened her when they responded to the call and gave her an unwarranted parking
citation.
When EPD contacted the complainant, she withdrew her complaint. EPD chose to
investigate it nonetheless, a practice that we recommend. As a result of their
investigation, EPD noted that the behavior of the senior employee on scene could have
been better, citing a “missed opportunity to de-escalate.”
EPD reported that they counseled the involved employees on their response. We
recommended that this informal and non-disciplinary counseling be documented and
discuss this below.
OIR Group – Q3 Case Review
Page 2 of 15
10

[PAGE 11]
Case #22-14
The complainant in this case alleged that an EPD employee made him feel unwelcome
in the EPD lobby. When contacted, the complainant stated that he wished to withdraw
his complaint. EPD conducted a preliminary investigation of the incident. EPD reported
that it provided the employee informal counseling regarding interactions with members
of the public but did not document this counseling.
Again, we recommended that these teachable moments be fully documented; see our
detailed recommendation section below.
Case #22-15
This was an internally generated investigation of an animal shooting. As detailed in the
memo, officers responded to a trespass call, which resulted in a foot pursuit and an
animal shooting.
While we found the investigation to be thorough with respect to the animal shooting
(which EPD found to be in policy), we found that the investigation did not meaningfully
address the choice to engage in a foot pursuit. EPD conducted a cursory review and
found the foot pursuit to be justified. But we recommended that, when reviewing
officers’ decisions to engage in foot pursuits, the Department should consider all the
various factors articulated in its foot pursuit policy to assess whether there were safer,
reasonably practicable alternatives for apprehending the subject. In the end, the
Department might reasonably have concluded the foot pursuit in this case was justified
but should only do so after considering all relevant factors.
Real-Time Collaboration: Case Summaries &
Recommendations
As noted in our introduction, EPD requested, and our scope or work envisioned, real-
time engagement with the Department before a case was closed. In the following
cases, EPD provided the investigative file for our review when it felt that the
investigation was sufficiently complete. After constructive dialogue, we provided
feedback and recommendations, which EPD often adopted before the case was sent to
the Chief for final disposition and closure.
The cases reported here are now officially closed.
OIR Group – Q3 Case Review
Page 3 of 15
11

[PAGE 12]
Case #22-04
In this case, the complainant felt that she was being harassed for parking her vehicles in
front of her residence for several days. When the complainant moved one of them to a
different location, the vehicle was vandalized and then later stolen.
The complainant called EPD to file a stolen vehicle report. The employee who
responded told her that, because the vehicle was not formally registered to her or
family, EPD could not take a police report. She filed two complaints about the matter,
stating she was unfairly harassed and that EPD refused to file a report.
The investigator called the complainant nearly a year later. They spoke at length about
the incident and the complainant’s hoped-for outcome. The complainant said she felt
heard, but also reiterated that her family was upset, and that she felt targeted and
harassed. The investigator indicated they would look into it.
The investigator reviewed the calls for service, body-worn camera footage, and the
related citations and police reports for compliance with law and policy. One of the
involved employees submitted a voluntary written statement detailing the incident and
rationale for actions taken. Using this evidence, the investigator determined that the
actions of EPD employees had not violated any Department policy or City law and
requested to close the investigation.
While we agreed with the ultimate outcome based on the evidence provided, we and
EPD identified procedural issues with this case, which we discussed with EPD.
First, the assignment and investigation of this case was not timely. Overall, delays in
initiation of an investigation can have potential consequences. Apart from the inherent
value of addressing personnel issues promptly and maintaining the public’s trust in the
process, the time lags can affect the quality of available evidence and available
disciplinary outcomes if misconduct is discovered.
EPD acknowledged that timeliness was a significant concern in this case specifically
and for IA, generally. EPD has since remediated by hiring personnel to work in IA. We
are now seeing cases completed in a timely manner and will continue to track progress
on this issue; we discuss staffing challenges further, below.
Second, this case was classified as a “complaint withdrawn,” a classification which we
noted in several EPD cases. In this specific case, the classification was apparently
made in error, though likely unintentionally.
OIR Group – Q3 Case Review
Page 4 of 15
12

[PAGE 13]
In the original investigative memo received by OIR Group, the investigator stated that
the complainant had requested to formally withdraw her complaints during the intake
interview. But when we reviewed the interview, we did not hear the complainant
withdraw her complaints or change her mind about the incidents or the employees’
conduct. While she seemed satisfied after her lengthy discussion with the investigator,
which the investigator may have interpreted as a resolution, she reiterated that she felt
harassed and was displeased with the employees’ responses.
EPD agreed with our assessment and corrected the investigative memo to reflect that
the complainant had not, in fact, withdrawn her complaint.
To his credit, despite believing that the complainant wished to withdraw her complaint,
the investigator still collected evidence to support the ultimate outcome. And EPD
reported that it spoke to the involved employees about the complaint and their actions.
But, as we discuss later in this report, the process matters as EPD strives to develop a
robust complaint investigation system.
Case #22-11
The complainant observed EPD employees “harassing” an unhoused community
member. When she attempted to intervene, she alleged that one employee placed his
hand on his firearm and aggressively commanded her to leave the area, which she did.
Two days later, the complainant was pulled over and arrested for driving with a
suspended license.
Over two years later, the complainant submitted a complaint stating that she had been
discriminated against for attempting to intervene, falsely arrested, and that the
employees were too aggressive when they “pulled her” from her vehicle during the
arrest. Further, she alleged that an EPD employee had authored a false police report.
The complainant did not provide any employee names.
The investigator was unable to contact the complainant using the number she provided.
Rather than end his search, the investigator engaged in an exhaustive search for the
complainant, going so far as to drive throughout Eureka to various past known
addresses to locate her. He eventually located the complainant and conducted a
thorough interview.
The investigator also conducted a detailed search of calls for service, police reports,
and arrests on the days in question and was able to identify some of the involved
employees. The investigator notified and interviewed these employees.
OIR Group – Q3 Case Review
Page 5 of 15
13

[PAGE 14]
The investigator then sought body-worn camera footage of the incidents. But due to the
length of time elapsed between the events and the complaint, these incidents, while
appropriately recorded and retained at the time, had been destroyed per the records
retention policy.
The investigator framed five allegations against EPD employees:
1: 339.5.3. Discrimination, Oppression, or Favoritism. The complainant alleged
that EPD had discriminated against her when they arrested her because of her
prior attempt to intervene in enforcement activity.
2: 339.5.9. Conduct. The complainant alleged that employees exceeded their
peace officer powers when they arrested her unlawfully.
3: 339.5.9. Conduct Unbecoming. The complainant alleged that her arrest was
unlawful, which reflected poorly on the employee and EPD.
4: 339.5.1. Conduct. The complainant alleged that the employee had violated the
law when the employee arrested her.
5: 300.3. Use of Force. The complainant alleged that EPD employees were overly
aggressive when they yelled at her, and again when they pulled her from her
vehicle during arrest.
Based on the available evidence, the investigator recommended that allegations 1 to 4
be Unfounded: the traffic stop and arrest were lawful and pursuant to a bench warrant.
The investigator recommended that allegation 5 be Not Sustained, which means that
the investigation could not prove or disprove the allegation. In the absence of body-
worn camera footage, the investigator reviewed the complainant and officer statements
of the incident. The complainant recalled that she experienced excessive force. The
officer did not, referencing the fact that, had he used force, he would have documented
it.
This recommendation is commendable. In other jurisdictions, we have noted that a
department often automatically “sides” with its employee, weighing the employee’s
account over the complainant’s. Here, the investigator appropriately noted that he did
not have sufficient evidence to prove or disprove the allegation.
Indeed, this entire complaint investigation was commendable. We did not identify any
concerns with this case; as such, the Chief issued his final dispositions as
recommended and closed the case.
OIR Group – Q3 Case Review
Page 6 of 15
14

[PAGE 15]
Case #22-12
This investigation was prompted by EPD's receipt of a written complaint that made
several allegations against an employee. These exhibited a range in their clarity and
plausibility. Nonetheless, once the case was assigned to an investigator, that person
made assiduous (but unsuccessful) efforts to locate the complainant to conduct an
interview and potentially gain more workable information about the concerns.
It turned out that the complainant – who had a history of police contacts and mental
health issues – was related to the employee named in the complaint. The investigator
found three somewhat recent calls for service that revolved around the complainant and
included a response by the related member of EPD. Body-worn camera recordings
showed the communications that occurred between the two in each instance; these
primarily involved evaluation of the complainant's well-being and immediate plans for
care and shelter. The employee was found to have acted appropriately in the context of
each encounter, and other EPD personnel were involved in each instance.
This review of available records was supplemented by an interview with the subject
employee, who persuasively denied the misconduct allegations and provided useful
context about the complainant's personal history.
The investigator framed several potential policy violations as charges in the case and
determined each to be unfounded.
We noted a five-month delay between the submission of the complaint and the initiation
of the investigation.2 However, we found the investigation itself to be thoughtful,
rigorous, and effective in dealing with a sensitive situation.
Case #22-16
This case resulted from a traffic stop. The EPD employee observed two subjects in a
vehicle that he believed may be members of a gang. Later, he saw the vehicle pull over
in front of a residence. The subject ran inside the residence. The employee requested
another unit and approached the empty vehicle to look inside, at which point the subject
exited.
2 At the time of this investigation, the Department’s policy allowed a year for investigations to occur. EPD
leadership has since revised the policy to require more timely investigation to align with industry best
practices.
OIR Group – Q3 Case Review
Page 7 of 15
15

[PAGE 16]
The subject identified himself and confirmed that he was on probation with a general
search clause. The employee requested that the subject sit on the curb, which he did.
Other employees entered the residence to search the subject’s room.
An employee handcuffed the subject and detained him in the rear of the police vehicle
while a search was conducted, but the subject was ultimately released at the scene.
The subject filed a complaint, stating that he had been harassed and unlawfully
detained.
The assigned investigator reviewed all related evidence, including body-worn camera
footage and police reports.
The investigator then spoke with the subject on the phone. The investigator asked the
subject if the subject thought the employees had engaged in misconduct. The subject
responded that he did not know. In response, the investigator stated that EPD had not
identified any misconduct, and asked if the subject would like to rescind his complaint.
The subject responded that he did not think anything could be done about the incident.
The investigator wrote an administrative memo to document his review of evidentiary
materials and his conversation with the complainant. The investigator concluded that
no misconduct had occurred, that the employees had acted professionally, and that the
subject had withdrawn his complaint.
We discussed this case at length with EPD leadership. EPD highlighted concerns with
the complaint intake process, and because of this case has re-evaluated its complaint
intake process. Even before our review, EPD reported that it trained all investigators in
complaint intake, including taking all complaints as reported by the complainant, offering
options to resolve concerns and complaints, and formally documenting the process.
We also discussed our concerns with the actions of employees on scene. First, while
the actions of officers on scene were legal, we questioned whether handcuffing and
detaining the subject was retaliatory in nature, as employees did so only after the
subject asked for names and badge numbers. After conversation with EPD, we learned
that employees had other reasons to become concerned for their safety and that, in
fact, EPD command would have preferred that, for tactical reasons, the employees
handcuff and detain the subject earlier in the encounter.
We understand this perspective. However, the employees’ rationale was not
documented or included in the administrative memo.
OIR Group – Q3 Case Review
Page 8 of 15
16

[PAGE 17]
This resulted in two recommendations. First, we recommended that EPD instruct
employees to more fully document all rationale for detaining subjects, when practicable,
either in real-time (e.g., articulated on BWC) or after the incident in their police reports.
Recommendation Q3 -1: EPD should instruct employees to document all
reasons more fully for detaining subjects, when practicable, either in real-
time (e.g., articulated on BWC) or after the incident in their police reports.
Second, the lack of documentation suggested that more investigation may have been
warranted for this case. For example, the investigator could have asked the employee
to articulate his decision-making on scene in an administrative interview. Absent any
documented rationale (e.g., in a police report or body-worn camera) and without an
administrative interview, all parties are left to speculate why the employees acted as
they did.
But, as we noted above in Case 22-04, this case was not investigated further because
this complaint was also classified as “withdrawn.”
We discuss our recommendations on this issue further, below.
Case #23-10
This complaint originated from a call for service. The subject initially contacted dispatch
to request medical aid, stating that he was experiencing what appeared to be a mental
health crisis. After extensive conversation with the subject, Dispatch determined that a
welfare check by EPD employees would be more appropriate for the circumstances and
sent employees to his location.
The responding employee did not initially find the subject at the address provided.
Another responding employee recalled seeing the subject walking, and the employees
responded to his location. The subject reported that he was walking to the hospital.
The subject again requested medical aid. The employees hesitated, and one asked
why the complainant could not just continue walking to the hospital. The complainant
became very agitated, yelled, and called 911 again demanding an ambulance. By this
time, the subject’s father had also responded to the location and confirmed that perhaps
an ambulance would be the best choice.
An employee offered the subject a ride, but the subject declined. The subject, still
agitated, abruptly turned and walked away, yelling that he would walk to the hospital.
This ended the initial contact.
OIR Group – Q3 Case Review
Page 9 of 15
17

[PAGE 18]
Later, EPD received a call for assistance from the hospital: while being medically
treated, the complainant had become aggressive. When hospital staff attempted to
restrain him, the complainant kicked a nurse. The staff requested that EPD arrest the
complainant for assault.
When EPD arrived, the complainant was seated. He went limp and became a dead
weight. EPD employees struggled to physically move him from the facility into the rear
of the police vehicle; at one point he rolled off a wheelchair and scraped his elbow on
the pavement. With considerable effort, they finally got him seated and secured in the
patrol car for transport to the jail. Once at the jail, employees transferred care to the jail
staff.
The complainant filed a complaint, stating that employees had refused to call an
ambulance to transport him, had used excessive force, and had damaged his property.
EPD reviewed all relevant evidence, including the police reports, dispatch records, and
body-worn video camera footage. EPD determined that employees had acted
professionally during the encounter and did not use force beyond the physical control
holds necessary to move the subject’s dead weight from the hospital to the police
vehicle. EPD closed the case with an administrative memo.
We reviewed the same evidence. Initially, we questioned why dispatch would send
employees for welfare check instead of sending medical assistance as requested. We
also sought clarification for the employees’ hesitance to request an ambulance when
they later encountered the complainant and his father (who also requested an
ambulance), and the employee’s initial demeanor when he advised the complainant that
he should just continue walking (though we do note that the employee offered the
subject a ride).
EPD responded that, based on their training and protocol, dispatch appropriately
determined that the complainant was not experiencing a medical emergency that would
require an ambulance response. Rather, as dispatch documented in the call notes, the
complainant was likely experiencing a mental health crisis, which necessitated a welfare
check. Later, employees made this same determination: employees determined that
the complainant was not experiencing an immediate medical emergency. The
complainant then left the location before employees could determine if he met any of
the criteria for a mental health hold (e.g., danger to self, others, or gravely disabled, also
known as a “5150” hold). Further, reported EPD, the City and County face resource
limitations and, as such, cannot send emergency medical aid to requests where the
need is not immediately warranted.
OIR Group – Q3 Case Review
Page 10 of 15
18

[PAGE 19]
We understand this rationale and the resource limitations faced by Eureka and
Humboldt County. This is a concern nationwide, and one that often leaves law
enforcement responsible for crises calls that might be better suited for
behavioral/mental health clinicians. We look forward to working with EPD on this issue,
to learning more about their response protocols, and to recommending ways to better
serve those experiencing crisis.
Finally, while we agree there was no formal misconduct in this case, we found that
employees could benefit from informal counseling on compassionate and appropriate
responses to those experiencing a mental health crisis. We discuss this
recommendation in greater detail below.
Policy, Training, or Process Issues
Through our case reviews and collaborative discussions with EPD and the City, we
have identified three areas where we can continue to work with the Department to
develop policy and procedures for more effective case review. In making these
recommendations, we are also mindful that EPD is facing staffing challenges – at the
time of publication, the Department has 13 vacant positions. As we work with EPD
toward achieving the goals of our recommendations, we will make every effort to
streamline and improve processes in ways that do not negatively impact the already-
existing staffing challenges.
Administrative Closure of Complaints
During our time as Eureka’s IPA, we have reviewed a number of cases that EPD closed
with an administrative memo versus a full, formal investigation.
In two of these, the employee was no longer with EPD and we determined that
administrative closure was appropriate.
EPD also used an administrative memo to close out complaints that it determined would
not result in sustained findings; that is, after an initial investigation of evidence, such as
police reports and body-worn camera footage, EPD determined that the alleged actions
either did not occur as alleged (“unfounded”) or occurred but were within policy
(“exonerated”). As such, EPD determined that these cases did not warrant any further
investigation and closed them without assigning formal dispositions.
When done thoroughly and appropriately, closing a case after an initial investigation
proves conclusive can be an appropriate decision. To be clear, EPD’s cases, with few
exceptions, are well-investigated; IA reviews relevant evidence to determine if any
OIR Group – Q3 Case Review
Page 11 of 15
19

[PAGE 20]
misconduct occurred and articulates this well in their memos. We recommend that IA
take the final steps to thoroughly document the cases and complete them per industry
standards.
We will continue to work with EPD leadership on this issue, with the goal of crafting a
policy that meets industry standards while ensuring that cases that require formal
investigation receive such scrutiny. We have worked with other jurisdictions to create
processes for efficiently addressing allegations are clearly unfounded or exonerated
based on initial review of evidence, while also requiring proper documentation,
disposition, and notification of outcomes. We will explore the use of similar processes
in EPD.
It is true that, in our experience, some agencies prefer to avoid “complicating” an
officer’s personnel history with complaints that prove to be unsubstantiated. In our view,
though, the importance of accuracy and completeness outweighs these concerns. And
regardless, disproven cases do not and should not reflect poorly on the individual
officer.
Recommendation Q3-2: The IPA and EPD should draft a policy that that
meets industry standards while ensuring that cases that require formal
investigation receive such scrutiny.
Managing Withdrawn Complaints
In this period, EPD reported that, after speaking to an IA investigator, two complainants
decided to withdraw their formal complaints (see 22-04 and 22-16). To its credit, EPD
had already collected sufficient information to determine that the alleged misconduct
had either not occurred as described by the complainant or had occurred but was within
policy and procedures. EPD closed these cases without further investigation and
without findings.
But, as with the administrative closures described above, OIR Group opines that some
“complaint withdrawn” cases may merit investigation. The mere fact that the
complainant withdraws a complaint alone is not a sufficient basis to close an
investigation. Complainants may be motivated by various factors to “withdraw” a
complaint, many of them having nothing to do with the legitimacy of the complaint: in
22-16, the complainant was essentially “talked out” of making the formal complaint, and,
in 22-04, OIR Group discovered, and EPD agreed, that the complainant had not actually
withdrawn her complaint at all.
OIR Group – Q3 Case Review
Page 12 of 15
20

[PAGE 21]
While EPD corrected these missteps to the best of its ability in these specific cases, and
committed to re-training IA investigators on complaint intake, it stopped short of
investigating the cases further (in the case of 22-04, the case was already well beyond
that statute of limitations). OIR Group recommends that EPD carefully reconsider its
response to complaints that it believes to be “withdrawn.” OIR Group recommends that
Internal Affairs, in consultation with the Chief and OIR Group, review each withdrawn
complaint to ascertain:
 If the complaint process was fully described to the complainant after the
complainant expressed his/her wish to withdraw a complaint.
 If the complainant was in any way coerced or convinced to withdraw his/her
complaint during the intake interview.
 The nature, severity, and possible disciplinary outcome of the allegations in the
withdrawn complaint.
If the allegations are of a serious nature, or indicate a need for directed training,
counseling, or other action, EPD should investigate. EPD leadership has expressed
that it is committed to this process; we will continue to work with EPD to ensure that all
complaints, regardless of whether they are withdrawn, receive the appropriate level of
investigation, findings, and documentation.
Documentation of Informal “Teachable Moments”
As exemplified by the cases detailed in this report, every complaint, whether internally
or externally generated, provides an opportunity for EPD to engage in critical evaluation.
Nine months into our engagement, EPD has already acted to formally modify policy or
to reconsider its general policing philosophy (for example, how it will respond to calls for
service regarding civil matters) in response to issues identified in complaints. And, in
cases where allegations are sustained, EPD provides the appropriate corrective action
and discipline.
EPD reported that complaints sometimes allowed for “teachable moments,” or ways that
the officers may have done better in response to a call for service. For example, in the
case where a complainant felt unwelcome by staff in the Department lobby, EPD
reported that it had spoken to the employee about the incident and encouraged a more
pleasant disposition toward the public. However, this commendable action is seldom
documented.
Here again, we have engaged in robust discussions with EPD leadership over how best
to balance our recommendation to document these important conversations against any
OIR Group – Q3 Case Review
Page 13 of 15
21

[PAGE 22]
legal implications, impact to employee morale, and perceived increased workload of
documenting “teachable moments.”
We maintain that documenting these actions as they relate to a specific complaint is in
the best interest of a department and its employees. From an individual officer’s
perspective, documentation – even informal – allows for tracking behavior over time;
this may result in positive evaluations as the officer shows growth or, conversely, may
uncover an area where an employee may need more formal coaching or training. This
also serves as effective risk management, as it ensures that the action actually
occurred, and allows external auditors, such as the IPA, to track these actions. We also
find that transparent reporting, including noting these commendable informal corrective
actions, is a large part of gaining community trust.
We acknowledge the Department’s concerns about documenting specific critiques and
will continue our discussions with Department leadership about how best to implement
our recommendation.
Recommendation Q3-3: EPD and the IPA should collaborate to determine
the best mechanism to document actions taken in response to a
complaint.
Overall, we are pleased to report that EPD has been receptive to our recommendations
thus far. We have reviewed several very thorough and fair investigations and see that
there is room for improvement. Our robust discussions and EPD leadership’s
willingness to collaborate assure us that EPD is committed to working with the IPA to
make continued improvements.
OIR Group – Q3 Case Review
Page 14 of 15
22

[PAGE 23]
Appendix A: Case Review Memos
OIR Group – Q3 Case Review
Page 15 of 15
23

[PAGE 24]
7142 Trask Avenue
Playa del Rey, CA 90293
323-821-0586
OIRGroup.com
TO: City of Eureka
FROM: OIR Group
DATE: June 7, 2023
RE: Review of Administrative Investigation – #OIR22-10
Introduction
In its role as the City of Eureka’s Independent Police Auditor, OIR Group reviews
internal investigations completed by the Eureka Police Department (EPD) to ensure
they are complete, objective, thorough, and fair and that findings and actions taken in
response to the investigations were appropriate.
Case Summary and Investigation
A complainant submitted a form she had filed online with the U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division, then printed and mailed to EPD. The complaint lists “profiling,
stalking, harassment, and retaliation” without further detail.
The case stemmed from a response to a call for service: two EPD employees
responded to a report of suspicious persons tampering with a vehicle at the location.
These employees approached her car at around 1:30AM. She was standing beside the
open driver’s door talking to a man who was holding a bicycle. The employees began
talking to the complainant, who immediately walked away from them. The employees
later learned the car’s registration was expired, and began talking to the bicyclist,
explaining the nature of the suspicious persons call. The complainant returned,
complaining that officers were stalking and harassing her.
24

[PAGE 25]
While the employees were asking her about her registration, the complainant called
911, claiming she was being harassed and bullied, and would be pressing charges with
the Department of Justice and the FBI.
She then asked for the employees’ badge numbers. The senior employee on scene
provided a badge number and name. When the complainant asked how to spell the
name, the employee told her to read it off the name plate affixed to his uniform. Other
employees provided their names and badge numbers.
She said, “I am reporting you to the Department of Justice for harassment and stalking.”
She continued to go on about suing the officers, and again called 911 while officers
were still on scene.
The senior employee continued to engage with the clearly agitated complainant, arguing
that they hadn’t done anything to harass or threaten her. Indeed, the employees had
been calm and only tried to talk to her about her registration. Ultimately, the employee
wrote a parking citation and left it on her windshield. She took it and drove away.
The complainant successfully challenged the parking citation by eventually providing
proof that her registration was valid.
EPD’s Investigation and Analysis
When the EPD investigator contacted the complainant, she told them the matter had
been taken care of and they didn’t need to look into it any further.
Despite the complainant’s withdrawal of her complaint, the investigator completed the
investigation. The investigator reviewed the body-worn camera footage and concluded
the officers wrote a valid ticket and did not violate any policies. But the investigator also
found that the senior employee might have further agitated the complainant by refusing
to spell the employee’s last name, instead directing her to read it off the name plate.
The investigator described this as a “missed opportunity to de-escalate” the encounter,
but did not document any actions taken to address this issue with the officer.
The investigation was closed without any formal Department finding or action.
OIR Group Review
We reviewed the complete case file. We do not disagree with the closure of the IA
investigation, based on the complainant’s withdrawal of her complaint and the body-
worn camera footage. However, we agree that the lead employee’s demeanor with the
complainant could have been better. Beyond the refusal to spell the employee’s name
OIR Group - Review of Eureka OIR#22-10
Page 2 of 3
25

[PAGE 26]
for her, the employee also continued to argue with her when it should have been clear
that she was reacting in a way that evidenced a mental health concern. Continuing to
engage only further agitated her and exacerbated her belief that she was being
harassed.
This case presented an opportunity for addressing the employee’s communication skills,
particularly with subjects who are in some type of mental health crisis. Especially in
cases like this, where there was at least one new officer at the scene, EPD should
identify the chance to discuss ways in which the overall approach to the scenario could
be improved. We were advised that some informal counseling did occur in this case; we
recommend that the Department document that type of remediation in future cases.
OIR Group - Review of Eureka OIR#22-10
Page 3 of 3
26

[PAGE 27]
7142 Trask Avenue
Playa del Rey, CA 90293
323-821-0586
OIRGroup.com
TO: City of Eureka
FROM: OIR Group
DATE: July 16, 2023
RE: Review of Administrative Investigation – OIR 22-014
Introduction
In its role as the City of Eureka’s Independent Police Auditor, OIR Group reviews
internal investigations completed by the Eureka Police Department (EPD) to ensure
they are complete, objective, thorough, and fair and that findings and actions taken in
response to the investigations were appropriate.
Case Summary and Investigation
Complainant contacted a City employee to complain about an unprofessional encounter
he had with an employee in the lobby of the Police Department when he had gone to
EPD to update his mailing address.
EPD’s Investigation and Analysis
The investigator interviewed the complainant in person. The complainant said he could
not remember anything the employee said to him, but that the employee looked at him
in a way that made him feel unwelcome. The complainant believed that EPD should
give the employee a “talking to” about how to treat people, but ultimately said he wished
to withdraw his complaint. The investigator requested the investigation be closed.
27

[PAGE 28]
OIR Group Review
We reviewed the complaint and the investigative file. We also spoke with EPD and
learned that management had made the employee aware of this complaint and provided
informal counseling about making sure members of the public feel welcome in the
Department’s lobby. We find the decision to close this investigation was reasonable.
OIR Group - Review of OIR 22-014
Page 2 of 2
28

[PAGE 29]
7142 Trask Avenue
Playa del Rey, CA 90293
323-821-0586
OIRGroup.com
TO: City of Eureka
FROM: OIR Group
DATE: October 6, 2023
RE: Review of Administrative Investigation – OIR #22-15
Introduction
In its role as the City of Eureka’s Independent Police Auditor, OIR Group reviews
internal investigations completed by the Eureka Police Department (EPD) to ensure
they are complete, objective, thorough, and fair and that findings and actions taken in
response to the investigations were appropriate.
Case Summary and Investigation
Officers responded to a retail establishment to remove two individuals suspected of
trespassing. They learned that both individuals had outstanding warrants, and both
fled. Officers went in foot pursuit and caught one individual, while the second subject
continued to flee. An officer heard the broadcast of the pursuit while in the officer’s
patrol car, and then observed the subject run into a greenbelt. The officer broadcast
that the officer was going into foot pursuit, exited the vehicle, and entered the greenbelt
through a large hole in a chain-link fence.
Almost immediately after the officer passed through the fence, a dog charged at the
officer out of an encampment in the greenbelt. The officer drew the officer’s handgun
and discharged the firearm three times, killing the dog, who had advanced to within
three to five feet of the officer. The dog’s owner and others from the encampment
began yelling at the officer as the officer backed up through the hole in the fence, still
29

[PAGE 30]
holding the firearm at the officer’s side. The officer ordered the bystanders to stay back
while keeping the gun at “low ready” and waiting for other officers to arrive and assist.
EPD’s Investigation and Analysis
EPD conducted a thorough investigation of this incident, including reports from all
involved and witness officers, interviews of civilian witnesses, review of body-worn
camera footage, and two separate administrative interviews of the shooting officer.
The Department evaluated the officer’s actions for compliance with several different
EPD policies.
 Policy 312.7.1 DESTRUCTION OF ANIMALS
The policy authorizes officers to use firearms to stop an animal in circumstances
where the animal poses an imminent threat to human safety and there are no
other alternatives available. Here, the dog aggressively charged the officer
immediately as the officer entered the area of the encampment and, as
articulated in the officer’s interview and depicted on body-worn camera, the
officer had very little time to react or employ other alternatives to stop the dog.
An independent witness who was present in the encampment provided a
statement confirming that no one had physical control of the dog at the time the
officer entered the area.
The Department concluded the officer’s use of a firearm was within policy.
 The Department also concluded the officer complied with policies regarding
report preparation and activation of body-worn cameras.
 Finally, the Department evaluated the officer’s decision to initiate a foot pursuit.
EPD concluded that the officer did not violate policy in deciding to pursue based
on the fact the officer had information that the subject had outstanding warrants
and was fleeing from police.
OIR Group Review
We reviewed the complete case file, including the body-worn camera footage. We found
the investigation to be thorough and EPD’s finding with respect to the shooting to be
reasonable.
OIR Group - Review of Eureka OIR#22-015
Page 2 of 4
30

[PAGE 31]
The Department’s review of this incident, however, did not meaningfully address the
foot pursuit in light of EPD policy. Policy 458.2 – FOOT PURSUITS – begins with a
statement about an officer’s decision to pursue:
The safety of department members and the public should be the primary
consideration when determining whether a foot pursuit should be initiated
or continued. Officers must be mindful that immediate apprehension of a
suspect is rarely more important than the safety of the public and
department members.
The policy includes a list of guidelines that officers should consider when deciding
whether to engage in or continue a foot pursuit that is consistent with this view, and
instructs that officers “should consider alternatives” to pursuing when, among other
things, “[t]he officer is acting alone.”
This directive is based on the fact that single officer foot pursuits can present a number
of officer safety concerns. For example, the subject being pursued determines the path
of the pursuit and has a tactical advantage and has the opportunity to ambush the
pursuing officer. A long foot pursuit also can leave an officer (who is weighed down by
necessary gear on his or her belt) winded, and the exhaustion can compromise the
officer’s tactical skills and decision-making ability. The dynamic of a solo officer foot
pursuit is also unsafe for the public and the subject being pursued, as the heightened
sense of danger faced by officers in this scenario may cause the officer to mis-perceive
potential threats.
Here, the officer was acting alone when the officer decided to enter the greenbelt to
pursue the subject. Being attacked by a dog was just one of many possible bad
outcomes in this scenario. Given the Department’s preference – as stated in policy –
for not having officers engage in solo foot pursuits, the Department’s review of this
incident should have discussed the officer’s alternatives in a more substantive way. For
example, could the officer have waited for backup while communicating the subject’s
location and coordinating a containment? Given that officers knew the subject’s
identity, would it have been reasonable to wait and apprehend him at a later time?
Instead, the Department essentially concluded the pursuit was justified because the
subject was fleeing officers who had the legal right to arrest him.
When weighing an officers’ decisions to engage in foot pursuits, we recommend the
Department more meaningfully engage with the various factors articulated in its foot
pursuit policy to assess whether there were safer, practicable alternatives for
apprehending the subject. The Department should view cases such as this one as
OIR Group - Review of Eureka OIR#22-015
Page 3 of 4
31

[PAGE 32]
opportunities for training and reinforcing its expectation that officers will consider their
own safety and the safety of others before engaging in potentially dangerous foot
pursuits.
Recommendation 22-15:01: When reviewing officers’ decisions to
engage in foot pursuits, the Department should consider all of the various
factors articulated in its foot pursuit policy to assess whether there were
safer, reasonably practicable alternatives for apprehending the subject.
OIR Group - Review of Eureka OIR#22-015
Page 4 of 4
32

[PAGE 33]
Agenda Item No:H.2
Community Oversite on Police Practices Board Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: October 24, 2023
Submitted by: Shannon Fazio
Submitting Department: City Manager
Item Type: Report
Agenda Section:
Subject:
Complaints and Investigation Review Log
Suggested Action:
Receive Report
Attachments:
OIR Group - Eureka Police Department Complaint Log October 2023.pdf
33

[PAGE 34]
City of Eureka Independent Police Auditor
Complaints & Investigations Log
Updated: 10/17/23
** Indicates an Agenda Item
Case ID Type Date Received Case Summary Status
Department alleged obscene, indecent,
profane, or derogatory language relating
to employees of the Department or
members of the public. Department
alleged direct harassment. Department
alleged disparate treatment within Presented to COPP
Texting Internal 3/17/2021 Department. 7/25/23
Department alleged improper
handling/booking of evidence and
violations of the body worn camera Presented to COPP
OIR 22-01 Internal 1/1/2022 activation policy. 4/25/23
Complainant alleged that complainant
was intimidated, threatened, abused
OIR 22-02 Civilian 3/18/2022 and falsely arrested. Received by OIR Group
1
34

[PAGE 35]
Case ID Type Date Received Case Summary Status
Complainant alleged that employee(s)
manipulated their children and had a
friendship with the opposing party
during a child custody exchange Presented to COPP
OIR 22-03 Civilian 3/11/2022 dispute. 7/25/23
Complainant alleged harassment by an
employee related to tagging of parked
OIR 22-04 Civilian 4/22/2022 vehicles. Q3 Report **
Complainant alleged excessive use of
force related to the December 30, 2021,
OIR 22-05 Civilian 5/12/2022 critical incident. Received by OIR Group
Closed with memo;
Complainant alleged rude and employee no longer with
OIR 22-06 Civilian 7/6/2022 discourteous comments. EPD
Department investigation of a negligent Presented to COPP
OIR 22-07 Internal 7/25/2022 discharge of a firearm. 4/25/23
Complainant alleged inappropriate use Pending upload for OIR
OIR 22-08 Civilian 9/12/2022 of force during arrest. review
Closed with memo;
Department investigation related to employee no longer with
OIR 22-09 Internal 8/17/2022 inappropriate sharing of information. EPD
Complainant alleged that a parking
citation was a result of profiling, stalking,
harassment, and retaliation. Received Memo to COPP
OIR 22-10 Civilian 9/19/2022 via a DOJ Civil Rights Division notice. 10/24/23 **
2
35

[PAGE 36]
Case ID Type Date Received Case Summary Status
Complainant alleged false arrest, false
police report, discrimination, and being
taken advantage of during an
OIR 22-11 Civilian 9/22/2022 incident/arrest from early 2020. Q3 Report **
Complainant alleged misconduct, fraud,
victimization of identity and health
OIR 22-12 Civilian 10/8/2022 during a call for service Q3 Report **
Complainants alleged inaccurate/false
and delayed police reports after a traffic Presented to COPP
OIR 22-13 Civilian 10/17/2022 collision. Complaint withdrawn. 4/25/23
Complainant alleged rude and Memo to COPP
OIR 22-14 Civilian 10/14/2022 discourteous conduct. 10/24/23 **
Department initiated investigation of
firearm discharge at an animal that Memo to COPP
OIR 22-15 Internal 10/24/2022 resulted in the animal's death. 10/24/23 **
OIR 22-16 Civilian 9/6/2022 Complainant alleged harassment. Q3 Report **
Department initiated investigation of
OIR 23-01 Internal 1/10/2023 inappropriate use of social media. Received by OIR Group
Department initiated investigation of
report writing policy and Neglect of Duty
OIR 23-02 Internal 1/12/2023 related to a 2022 incident. Received by OIR Group
Department initiated investigation of
OIR 23-03 Internal 2/2/2023 efficiency. Tolled
Complainant alleged that complainant's
car was inappropriately towed. Presented to COPP
OIR 23-04 Civilian 2/9/2023 Complaint withdrawn. 4/25/23
3
36

[PAGE 37]
Case ID Type Date Received Case Summary Status
Complaint alleged rude and
discourteous language. Department
Civilian & alleged improper information-sharing
OIR 23-05 Internal 4/3/2023 internally. In progress
Complainant alleged discourtesy and
OIR 23-06 Civilian 5/18/2023 inaccurate report-writing. In progress
Department initiated investigation of use
of body-worn camera, unbecoming
OIR 23-07 Internal 6/29/2023 conduct, and harassment. In progress
OIR 23-08 Internal 7/4/2023 Complainant alleged discourtesy. In progress
OIR 23-09 External 8/16/2023 Complainant alleged discourtesy. In progress
OIR 23-10 External 8/17/2023 Complainant alleged use of force. Q3 Report **
OIR 23-11 External 8/17/2023 Complainant alleged discourtesy. In progress
Critical incident in which rounds were
12/30/2021 fired, injuring subject. Subject fled; foot
Critical Incident Additional material pursuit. Subject apprehended without
OIR 21-01 Review provided 7/12/23 further incident. Received by OIR Group
4
37

[PAGE 38]
Agenda Item No:J.1
Community Oversite on Police Practices Board Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: October 24, 2023
Submitted by: Shannon Fazio
Submitting Department: Police
Item Type: Presentation
Agenda Section:
Subject:
Status of staffing and recruitment
Suggested Action:
Receive Presentation
Attachments:
38

[PAGE 39]
Agenda Item No:J.2
Community Oversite on Police Practices Board Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: October 24, 2023
Submitted by: Shannon Fazio
Submitting Department: Police
Item Type: Presentation
Agenda Section:
Subject:
Eureka Police Department Software Update
Suggested Action:
Receive Presentation
Attachments:
39

[PAGE 40]
Agenda Item No:K.1
Community Oversite on Police Practices Board Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: October 24, 2023
Submitted by: Shannon Fazio
Submitting Department: City Manager
Item Type: Presentation
Agenda Section:
Subject:
Police Military Gear Update
Suggested Action:
Receive Presentation
Attachments:
40